Posted on 12/30/2004 2:08:16 PM PST by Marine Inspector
I guess that chemist geek is no longer capable of answering for himself, so has left it to you.
I didn't ask you the question, so your answer does not interest me in the least.
Chemist geek sits here questioning everyones loyalty. In doing this he has proven himself insignificant.
Chemist geek reminds me of the line from Shakespeare.
"...a tale, told by and idiot, full of sound of fury- signifying nothing"
Perhaps geek (or should I say Mullah Omar?) ought to go on other threads and try his Anti-American spiel there.
No one has proposed trashing the Constitution--despite the frenzied rantings of the Michigan Mullah. You have ignored the facts that no one has proposed any amendments that would do so, and that any law proposed would have o pass Constitutional scrutiny.
When asked to define the actions you would take inside our borders to ensure that future atack do not take place--you give no answer. Instead, you again attack the loyalty of others here--including some that have spent their adult lives defending this country.
I consider this thread dead, as there is no reason to further 'discuss' anything with those that have the bunker mentality you have.
Do not ping me.
Obviously you are very pro-muslim, if not muslim yourself.
You are the only one making wild accusations about concentration camps, etc., and are only one worried about anti-Muslim "bigotry".
Things changed when the attacks hit HOME, that's here, the GOOD OLD USA! And attacks on American soil causing the deaths of innocents, especially when they are the work of fundamental, BIGOTED fanatics, tend to stir us up.
It will take a long time before many Americans will be able to look at Muslims with any sense of trust, and that's just human nature.
That's also why, right or wrong, Japanese-Americans were interned in 1942: the Japanese attacked US.
But the Japanese-Americans, the Nisei, rose above it, and proved their loyalty, and America later admitted fault.
Perhaps if Loyal American Muslims decided to form an Islamic battalion and performed with only 25% of the bravery of the Nisei and they would inspire the Iraqi Guardsmen and Police to stand and fight, and convince many Americans that they are loyal. It has reached the point where Loyalty has to be proved when it relates to Islamic-Americans, again, it's just the nature of man.
Their actions will speak much louder than the drivel you have put forth, and will be positive.
Kill an Infidel for Muhammad!
As far as "proving" loyalty, why should anyone have to "prove" their loyalty, except to satisfy bigoted liberal group-guilt assumptions such as yours about Muslims?
There have been plenty of posts calling for the deportation or death of all Muslims. Heck, just up the thread a little ways there's a person admitting he'd be a good little Nazi and shoot Muslims resisting being sent to the internment camps.
Bigotry may be human nature but it is not rational. A Muslim did commit a terrorist attack, but it does not follow that therefore all Muslims are terrorists. Only irrational, fevered bigots can reach that conclusion.
How many times do I have to say this before you people get a clue? Holding all Muslims responsible for the terrorist acts of 19 is liberal group-guilt thinking! That bigotry is something to be eschewed.
And fastattacksailor's, whom I'm not pinging in homage to his request, protestations that no one is going against the Constituition is absurd. Every single one of these bigoted anti-Muslim proposals, from "profiling" to deportation to extermination, flies in the face of the First, the Fifth, and the Fourteenth Amendments at least.
I really wish you people would come up with some concrete proposals to increase American security which don't violate the Rights of Man. President Bush's plan of engaging and destroying the terrorists in their bases abroad is meeting with remarkable success. We must increase our intelligence efforts against those terrorists, and hold people liable for acts that they themselves take. Conspiracies to attack America can be discovered and destroyed before they make their moves, if we have sufficient intelligence. Why make obtaining cooperation more difficult by making America hostile to the religion of the area? Indeed, President Bush has been quite clear that terrorism is our enemy, not Islam.
I've been lucky enough to have friends and colleagues who are atheist, Buddhist, Catholic, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Orthodox, Protestant, Taoist, and Wiccan. I've also met distasteful people of many different faiths. There's no correlation. Perhaps if you religious bigots got out more, you'd see that there is no correlation between faith and evil. Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, was quoted as saying he'd rather people be Confucian or Muslim than atheistic. (He also said that Christianity is ideal, with which I happen to agree.)
No government is competent to say anything to anyone about their faith. Period, full stop. And, all the bigoted anti-Muslim proposals would have the Government say Islam is verboten here. Such an act is unconscionable and un-American.
Free speech is alive and well here, as is freedom of religion: nobody asked you or anyone to change your religion, we asked you to defend it, just as you've asked the Christians to defend the actions of their religion, albeit actions that took place long ago, and you've asked the Jews to defend the laws of the Old Testament, as if they were in full use today, which many are not.
Yet you offer NO solutions, only anger, vitriol, and name calling: matubators, Nazis and Bigots being your most favored.
It was NOT ONLY 19 - that day those 19 mongrels died as they murdered thousands; there were many other cowards who slunk away when the plots were uncovered and the airlines were shut down, they are still out there, but they'll be found, especially if the "good" Muslims cooperate.
Americans have shown great restraint towards Moslems, in fact the poor innocent Sikhs have been more abused.
Spare me your tears and rending of clothes, you pathetic Islamofascist apologist.
Americans have shown great restraint towards Moslems, in fact the poor innocent Sikhs have been more abused.
That's right - your brand of religious bigotry isn't as widespread as you fervently hope for. Most Americans understand that retribution and punishment should only attach to those who have actually commited some evil act, but not those who happen to share something in common with the perpetrators.
I hope you don't seriously think that McCain-Feingold and the Brady Bill have passed "Constitutional scrutiny".
The difference is that I actually respond to your rants, and try to help you understand, but you will have NONE of it, that's a pity, and that's why you'll always be the pathetic Islamofascist apologist loser that you are.
Instead of actually listening and attempting to be reasonable you have been nothing but an overly agressive attack dog since you started on this thread.
The problem is, you're a Yorkshire Terrier, not a Mastiff.
You are an annoying yapping ankle-biter with a single-minded mission: to attack any and all who disagree with Islam.
I'd pity you, but you've given me too many good laughs. In fact, if you didn't belch every now and then no one would probably notice you, and you are trying to compensate for your insignificance by being such an out of control nitwit on this thread.
Maybe I'll check other threads to see how you really feel about things.
WORD!
I have never cared for the politics of John McCain---or his so-called reform law. The crux of the problem is that if someone does feel the law is unconstitutional, it must first be challenged in court.
If someone hasn't taken the time to contest those laws (which I also disagree with) in Federal court---who is to blame?
There have been attempts to do so in NY (about the Brady Bill) My understanding is that the liberals (appointed by Clinton) have stopped them dead.
So, we keep on trying.....
Except these laws have been contested, and the judges have rejected the challenge. So in answer to your question, the judges are to blame. Not that it matters who's to blame, because we're still stuck with unconstitutional laws either way. My point is, the worst mistake we can make is to assume that some automatic "process" will protect us from unconstitutional law.
LOL...not even a smiley on that one, eh? ;-)
Do you have some kind of "inside" information that Hillary is going to be the next President? You bring that up in every thread.
No, I don't...and I hope it's not prescient!
I bring up Hillary because of the well known FBI file scandal, and though I could mention many figures I wouldn't want to have my biometric or personal data, none are as well known.
I guess we can worry about That terrorist event, after we finish dealing with the the one that is facing us right now. Islamic terrorists.
Unfortunately, the government doesn't seem to have a great history with giving back what they've taken, else we could perhaps deal with them sequentially.
First of all, you accuse us of caving in to fear...yet when you bring up Hillary, you are using the same tactic. Fear!
My position is based on maintaining a principle or principles. Freedom of religion, non-discriminationatory application of the law, and restricted and accountable government are basic American principles. The fear is only when we move away from principle. The difference is that Osama, et al., are using fear to push us away from our founding principles, and I see that as a problem (and one reason why they aren't analagous).
I believe the Patriot Act has guidelines. I'm sure it could be improved. I wish I had a say in that, but as of right now, I don't. I guess I need to start working on that too.
At least for now, we're a representative democracy. You have a say in it through your elected officials. :-)
If I were you, I'd be more concerned with what the left-wing agenda is doing to our Constitution and our wonderful Country. There is a lot more threat from them then from anything you will find here!
But that's just the problem. Now that "conservatives" are handing the left what they want (data collection on citizens, etc.), then there's little resistance to the left's trashing of it. Who can claim a moral high ground next time the left wants to curtail some rights, round up some gun owners, etc.? Certainly not those who claim that "unalienable rights" that were given to us by our Creator can be curtailed.
The danger is far greater than just today's difficulties.
I have one firm belief that you likely will not listen to.
First is the belief that the Constitution is a lot stronger and robust than any give it credit for.
MF is a joke of a law---and it will, in time get the boot.
As for Brady, I pay scant attention to it anyway. When I needed to purchase a new rifle, you just go where the law is selectively enforced. You don't really think I'm fool enough to tell them what I have, do you?
BTW, did you realise that with all the so-called gun control laws, the criminals always seem to get their grimy paws on weapons anyway. The 'bad guys' laugh their a$$es of when Sarah Brady spouts her BS.
When Colin Ferguson shot up a Long Island Railroad Train years ago, Myself and others pointed out that if ONE person on that train had been armed, Ferguson would have found himself with a large hole in his 10-ring.
I don't have the same hopes, for it or other unconstitutional laws the federal government has passed. They're "jokes" only in the sense that they'll never accomplish the purposes that were outwardly claimed for them, but that doesn't mean they're going anywhere. Unless a law like this has a sunset provision, it's almost impossible to get rid of it. And the fact that a law has passed judicial review does not mean that it's constitutional, or isn't dangerous to our liberties.
If a llaw has no sunset---work around it.
Do you REALLY think that the average gun owner (99.9% are law abiding, upstanding citizens) really pay attention to the law. If they have any sense, they ignore it. After all, they aren't going out and commiting a crime with the weapon.
that does NOT mean that I stop from working to have this silly law overturned.
I refer again to the criminal element; the element that could care less what law is or isn't passed. I enjoy pointing out to gun control freaks that THEY refuse to punish those who commit crime while using a weapon, whther it be legally purchased or not (ie from a smuggler, trunk of a car in Harlem, etc..)
They are appalled when I say that anyone that commits a crime with a gun ought to be shot themselves. It's fun to point out the hypocrisy in a liberal--and easy, too.
almost forgot---just because you haven't the hope the law is going anywhre does not mean you give up trying....
If you do that---the Brady's win. (and McCain's and Feingolds as well)
So you suggest that we pass these laws, and that the good honest Muslim evade them?!?
Not trying to put words in your mouth, but that seems to be what follows from your argument.
Oh, sorta like the subordinate role many are suggesting for Muslims here in the US?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.